Germalic v. Bullock

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION - Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 10/25/12. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

JAMES GERMALlC,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 12-1347-UNA

v.

JEFFREY BULLOCK,
Defendant.

James Germalic, Parma, Ohio, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

)S,

October
2012
Wilmington, Delaware

~u~·~:

On October 22,2012, Plaintiff James Germalic filed a motion for an injunction to
stop the printing of the ballots for the general election (0.1. 2) to be held on November
6, 2012. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis

(0.1. 1).
The court will deny without prejudice the request to proceed in forma pauperis

(0.1. 1). Plaintiff indicates that he is giving every state the opportunity to provide him
relief and he could pay the filing fee, but the filing of his numerous lawsuits in federal
courts is costly, exceeds his "total worth," and makes him a pauper. Plaintiff will be
given additional time to either pay the $350.00 filing or to submit a complete long form
application to proceed without prepayment of fees.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion for an injunction to stop the printing of the ballots
for the general election (0.1. 2). Plaintiff "aspired" to be a presidential candidate in 2012
but found it difficult, if not impossible, to get his name on the ballot. He complains that
Delaware's 6,000 signature requirement is too high for such a small state with a small
population. He "requests" an injunction to stop the printing of the ballots in order to
place his name on the ballot. (0.1. 2.)
Four factors govern the Court's decision whether to issue a preliminary
injunction. To obtain an injunction, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he is reasonably
likely to prevail eventually in the litigation and (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable
injury without relief. See Tenafly Eruv Ass'n, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144,
157 (3d Cir. 2002). If these two threshold showings are made then the Court considers,
to the extent relevant, (3) whether an injunction would harm Defendant more than

denying relief would harm Plaintiff and (4) whether granting relief would serve the public
interest. Id.
For Plaintiff to run as an unaffiliated candidate he must have met the following
qualifications: (1) certify that he has not been active with a political party for the past
three months; (2) collect signatures on petitions equal to at least 1% of the registered
voters in the jurisdiction; (3) collect the signatures between January 1 and July 15 in the
year of the election; and (4) submit the certi'fication, petitions and a candidate filing form
with the Delaware Department of Elections or before September 1,2012. See 15 Del.
C. § 3002. For Plaintiff to run as a write-in candidate, he must have submitted a write­
in candidate declaration to the Delaware Department of Elections by no later than
September 30, 2012. See 15 Del. C. §§ 3401-3404.
There is no evidence that Plaintiff made any attempt to meet the requisites for
either the placement of his name on the general election ballot or to run as a write-in
candidate. Notably, Plaintiff filed this action on October 22, 2012, a mere two weeks
prior to the November 6,2012 election. Clearly, the time for election officials to prepare
for the election is swiftly dwindling. The Court takes judicial notice that the ballots have
already been printed for the general election. See James Fisher and Jonathan Sarkey,

BodenweiserDrops Out, The News Journal, Oct. 18,2012. Hence, the relief Plaintiff
seeks is no longer available to him given that the ballots have been printed.
In addition, it is more likely than not that the mailing of absentee ballots has
begun. Thus, Plaintiff filed his motion too late for this Court to grant injunctive relief
without incurring a sizeable risk of substantial harm to the public by disruption of the

2

electoral process. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 34 (1968). Upon review of
the pending motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
injunctive relief is appropriate. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion (0.1. 2).
For the above reasons, the Court will deny without prejudice the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (0.1. 1) and will deny the motion for injunctive relief. (0.1. 2).
An appropriate order will be entered.

3